London (PTI): Scientists have developed what they claim is a revolutionary device, which can generate energy from ocean currents, enough to power the
entire world.

According to them, the technology can harness power in water flowing at a rate of less than one knot -- about a mile an hour -- meaning it could
operate on most waterways and sea beds around the globe.

Professor Michael Bernitsas, who led an international team at University of Michigan, said that the device was based on the changes in water speed
caused when a current flows past an obstruction.

"This is a totally new method of extracting energy from water flow. Fish curve their bodies to glide between the vortices shed by the bodies of the
fish in front of them.

"Their muscle power alone could not propel them through the water at the speed they go, so they ride in each other's wake," professor Bernitsas was
quoted by The Daily Telegraph as saying.

In fact, the device, called Vivace or vortex-induced vibrations for aquatic clean energy, has been inspired by the way a fish swims and consists of a
system of cylinders that're positioned horizontal to water flow and attached to springs.

As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then
converted into electricity. Cylinders arranged over a cubic metre of the sea or river bed in a flow of three knots can produce 51 watts.

According to the researchers, the technology requires up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation. "If we could harness 0.1 per cent
of the energy in the ocean we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people," said Prof Bernitsas, whose study is published in the Journal of
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.

You're exactly right. We do have many ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. From the exotic right down to simply planting a tree.
IMO everyone can plant a few trees in their yard to help. And for every tree that's cut down 2 should be planted in it's place.

I have alot of trees at my home. some decorative and some fruit bearing. There's nothing like fresh fruit

There are two problems with planting trees: Forstly, no one in power gets any tax money (especially when you simply drop a seed into the ground).
Secondly, it requires people to actually do something that doesn't involve sitting in an office and typing on a keyboard. They might get their hands
dirty.

Around here (if I may brag) I have pear trees, apple tree, cherry trees, black walnut trees, water chestnut trees, pecan trees, hickory trees
(hickory-nuts), mulberry trees (changed my building plans to let those buggers live), grape vines, muscadine vines, blackberry bushes, and I'm trying
desperately to find a place to put some raspberries and blueberries. Oh, and a place where we have traditionally kept peach trees, although those died
off a few years back; need to replant them.

There's little in life that feels better than walking out in the yard and just picking food off the ground or the branches and eating it. And they
make the air so clean at the same time...

Anybody else getting even a little concerned? I am. I must admit, however, that in this information age, it's easy to get concerned over these
things. The day-by-day, minute-by-minute nature of the internet makes it easy for us to overreact.

If, in the end, "global warming" turns out to be just a blip in Mother Natures' natural cycle, I still won't resent the climate prophets (Al Gore,
et al). Even if we wind up cooling down, I'd rather do it with a cleaner environment.

There is a direct relationship between our climate and sunspot activity. It has been shown how the Dalton and Maunder minimums impacted our climate
in a very negative way.

While our current minimum is certainly no Dalton or Maunder it is certainly far from normal. I saw a story where NASA was trying to claim this
minimum was no worse than previous ones because as part of their misinformation campaign they attempted to compare X number of months of previous
minimums to X number of months of this minimum. Sure the sunspot numbers over X number of months may not be worse. The problem is that the number of
months making up this minimum far exceed the months making up the solar minimums this century and possibly even those in the 1800's. Every month our
sunspot number finishes below 10 makes this solar minimum that much more unusual.

If you search the net you can find sunspot numbers going back to the 1700's I believe. There were some big minimums back in the day but the one we
are in now is the biggest of this century. And it seems to still be going strong.

Actually the USA has more trees now than we did a century ago. Much of the east coast was under cultivation and trees were burned for heat. The 100
acres I live on was cow pasture. I know because while putting in a second home for my brother we cleared an area and found evidence. Still smelled
of cow when you dug the foundation. 85% is now pine. Then there are all those stonewalls snaking through the woods in New England

Anyone else notice how the Politicos are changing their tune?. Instead of "Global Warming" it is now "politically correct" to call it "Climate
Change" They KNOW we are headed into a cooling trends and are already hedging their bets so they can take advantage of the sheeples short attention
span.

Here are some references (I already posted some of these before)

SUNSPOTS:
If you want to look at the recent sunspot activity data and draw your own conclusions a decent site is: www.dxlc.com...

Individual graphs of each cycle for 1 to 20 are at: Solar cycles 1-20 www.dxlc.com...

A thing of interest to note is the monthly average sunspot activity for minima is normally around 10 or more. The last couple of cycles have had
minima of 20 or more and now the average is 5 or less and has been for over a year. The start of cycle 24 was supposed to be in March 2008 but the sun
is not cooperating. DANG that sun

The last couple of cycles have had very high peak numbers of sunspots compared to the other 20 cycles, While cycle 23, the one just completed had a
lower peak than the previous two cycles. There is another cycle Gleissberg cycle, with Low activity cycles occurring about every 100 years. I think
this is why a low activity cycle is predicted for cycle 24. Also low activity minima seems to precede a low activity cycle. (I picked the high and
low for each cycle off the charts and then looked at them)

Hey ho!
Today I tried to open the solar cycles 1-20 page on....www.solen.info... it wasn't there!
Maybe it's just a glitch but who knows a lot of info ie sea temps from naval observatory & the usgs censorship cerca 15-18/12/07? (check Associated
Press around that date) lots of stuff
If anyone had the froesight to download any of these just put it up somewhere
I have it on another po.c which I don't have access to at the moment
Peace all ;o)

i must say its very interesting stuff and something id like to be kept updated on , since our summer here in norway is way colder then it has been in
over 20 years .
and back home where my sister lives its colder there too.

so yes i believe its possibie that we may be in for the next ice age and since our planet is out of wack she needs it to get back into balance with
her self.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.